Reenvisaging the CofE? [3] Making decisions differently.

From my earlier posts (Reenvisaging the CofE? [2]) about what it seems to me needs re-thinking about the CofE is a notable absence I realised: governance.

To be sure I mentioned it the previous post that the parish system needed tweaking at the least (and since then there have been some tweaks that have headed in the right direction: bishops' mission orders for example and the establishment of CMS as a religious community, for example. However, these don't touch the bigger picture of national governance.

What we have at the moment is sometimes described as a [quasi-] parliamentary model. General synod is elected from diocesan synods and conducts its business in a way closely modelled on the British parliament at Westminster. There is good reason for this, in a way, since General Synod is, in effect, an devolved assembly from the British Parliament who are still technically the supreme body (operating in the name of the monarch who is, as things stand, supreme governor of the temporal Church of England). General Synod does, thus, have the force of law for its measures. This is the effect of being the Established Church: technically the State does the governance -but it has devolved that for most purposes, though parliament still has to assent.

Of course, one of the things I would like to do is simply to cut that state tie. But I'm not going to argue that point here, rather I will assume that we could refashion the model and still relate to the state pretty much as before. Those better acquainted with the niceties of Establishment may have other things to say, of course, but I'm going to give what I would love for us to have a go at.

Democracy, as Winston Churchill is supposed to have said, is the worst form of government -except for all of the others. I say that by way of saying that while I am a passionate democrat for the purposes  of secular government, I'm less sure that vox populi really is vox Dei all of the time. Unlike a secular and pluralist state, the church is not in the business of representativeness (nor is the British parliament under the current electoral system!) so much as seeking the mind and will of God and caring for one another. Note that I keep those two things together and see them as devolving from the two great commandments: love God and love neighbour. I think that the latter is important in recalling us to pay attention to making sure that the process of decision making is humane, just and respectful. I tend to think that this puts a question mark against adversarial patterns of decision-making as these 'prime' mindsets and behaviour patterns that tend towards unrighteous anger and posturing, I believe.

In seeking the will of God, I think that the theological underpinnings should include a recognition of what the Reformers tended to call 'the priesthood of all believers' which the CofE recognises in its baptismal theology and thinking about ministerial priesthood. This relates to a democratic principle in that it recognises that discerning the mind of God is not the prerogative of a few but is potentially the privilege of all of the Body of Christ. This means, I believe that we need decision-making structures that maximise the ability to listen to one another and to listen in ways that encourage reflection and mutual recognition as fellow-members of the household of God and as potential carriers of vital and even crucial insights into the Mind of God. Allied with this is the sense that we are looking for discernment together rather than argument. Discernment may involve some argument, but the frame sets a very different tone and primes a different way of responding and acting within the arena of decision-making. Debate and discernment have very different emotional connotations and these impact on the issue of care for ones fellow decision-builders.

That's not to say that these attitudes are not present in synod members. It is to suggest, however, that the current parliamentary model does not express well this dynamic.

I would suggest too that the principle of priesthood of all believers should push us towards not a vote-based system so much as an assent-based system. I won't say 'consensus' because that could lead to a different dynamic again: I'm trying to suggest that working towards decisions that all can assent to in the sense of reckoning that it is a right way forward, even if they have reservations. It may be that votes would be indicators of the emerging mind of the decision-builders.

This is not to say, either, that the current system doesn't have an element of consensus-building and desire not to dis-fellowship others. But I am suggesting that a vote-and-majority system is not conducive to the listening and careful articulation and understanding that discernment would require.

I am wondering whether the indaba system that the Anglican communion has been trying to work with, might actually be an appropriate model.

The other matter of governance that I reckon we should look again at is elections to General Synod: currently the diocesan synod forms a kind of electoral college for it. I wonder whether a direct electoral system might be considered? It would help ordinary electoral roll members of churches to have a sense of a stake in General Synod and may even help the quality of debate.